I don't know what it is exactly about Yoshida, but I really like him. He seems really sincere. Not that I believe every word he says - he's a high-level executive, after all - but he really comes across well.

Yes, because if they were thinking about it a long time, they totally wouldn't have filed that anti-used game patent 4 months ago. Sony has just decided that the temporary "gotcha" value of outsourcing the DRM to the publishers is worth a lot more to them. Japanese companies typically think about Japan first, and a Microsoft system is extremely difficult to implement in Japan, as used game retailers tend to be independent shops or small chains, and they don't feel like making a thousand deals with an industry that the Japanese gaming industry has actively tried to ban through lawmaking.

Seriously, they're simply lying through their teeth. Japanese management in general sees the internet as a gigantic shopping mall and that alone, so they resist spending money on anything that isn't resulting in direct payments. That's why Sony got hacked, they failed to give the resources and hire enough qualified people to keep PSN as secure as possible. Their servers hadn't had YEARS-old patches applied to them, which indicates one of two things: Incompetence, or active sabotage of their IT department's ability to hire good people, or maintain equipment.

This kind of centralized system is expensive to maintain, develop, and implement, and Sony is simply poo-pooing it because they don't have it. I agree that the cloud calculations is absolutely unnecessary bullshit, and pretty much useless, but I don't agree that online features don't enhance the single player experience. Sony knows that Ubisoft and EA, two of their biggest partners already have these features implemented on Uplay and Origin, so they're willing to let them carry water for the time being.

I am incredibly impressed with how Sony has handled this whole situation. With money to most likely only buy one system at launch, it's going to be hard for Microsoft to convince me (and many others) to spend an extra $100 on their system.

"We didn't make a policy decision because some other company is doing something," Yoshida said in a roundtable discussion attended by Ars. "It's not that easy. Developing a system, it takes time and effort. We always planned [this]. We made this decision way back that we're going to treat the disc games like PS3"

...since we did not have time to get the code into the first release...

I don't know what it is exactly about Yoshida, but I really like him. He seems really sincere. Not that I believe every word he says - he's a high-level executive, after all - but he really comes across well.

He's one of the original playstation guys and they're basically doing what made the original playstation a success, make it something consumers and developers both want. Make it easy to develop on, spend a lot of time talking to developers about how to make a console, make it easy to play games on and everyone will come to the party.

When Sony were touting a while ago that they'd gone back to their roots to develop this console, I kind of figured it to be marketing bullshit. But they're obviously not idiots, it's a move that worked for them before and they're doing it again.

Everyone I know locally was on the fence over which system to order. Nearly a dozen of us have preordered the PS4 this week.

Its not that Microsoft has a bad product, it looks great and I think their online ecosystem is better. But, I don't know what demographic Microsoft has been targeting. It seems like it may only exist on a marketing slide somewhere.

I have never owned a Sony game system, but they spoke to me this week and spoke to my concerns.They won me for this generation.

I love the pricetag because I'm buying both and the cheaper the better, but I call bullshit on the fact that their policies and the way they presented them aren't a direct reaction to the XB1.

I agree with what he said in the interview, that's a matter of policy that you have to get worked out over a long period of time. It's not the kind of decision they can make and implement quickly just to react to Microsoft.

That said, the actual PR surrounding the announcement, and probably the presentation slides that were used in their E3 presentation, were 100% reaction to the XB1. I'm sure their PR guys saw an opportunity to win E3 and took full advantage of it.

Excellent. Best Buy is having a sale on the 12 month membership card so I'm tempted.

May as well. As long as you have the hard drive/memory card space for it, the regular updates to the "full game demos" (free games) have been worth it for me. It helps to have a PS3 and Vita (or at least PSP), but there's enough for either platform. Plus, the auto-updates are deceptively awesome.

I love the pricetag because I'm buying both and the cheaper the better, but I call bullshit on the fact that their policies and the way they presented them aren't a direct reaction to the XB1.

I agree with what he said in the interview, that's a matter of policy that you have to get worked out over a long period of time. It's not the kind of decision they can make and implement quickly just to react to Microsoft.

That said, the actual PR surrounding the announcement, and probably the presentation slides that were used in their E3 presentation, were 100% reaction to the XB1. I'm sure their PR guys saw an opportunity to win E3 and took full advantage of it.

Exactly, I'm sure their decision to stay with disk-based games and pricing was determined a while ago, but they can't deny that MS was a factor is making those decisions, and the presentation is clearly a direct shot at MS.

Sony like most any business may see the internet as a giant store. It's the shopping experience that matters. If you go the Microsoft route, it's a price club where you need membership and pay to even enter the store - or to use Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus which you've already paid just to have access.

The Sony model is less restrictive, get in for free, use Netflix (which you already paid for anyway) and if you want access to more, then pay for more and get into the exclusive club that comes with freebies.

This leads to the question for Microsoft, will Microsoft end up back tracking and come up with an XBox One.1 like Windows 8.1 to fix policy decisions that led to a product actual consumers didn't overwhelmingly like? Will Yusif Medhi be shown the door like Sinofsky for betting the companies reputation on something consumers really didn't like?

Sony seems to have learned from their past mistakes. Their motives might not align over time, but at least for now, they are the good guy meme to Microsoft's bad guy meme. Sony lets you in the door, Microsoft charges you at the door to get in, then holds the right to when, where, how long you can be there and if you will ever be able to be entertained when they close the club?

This is Microsoft's Game of Thrones moment. They can be HBO and focus on business to business relationships or do what actual consumers want and focus on actual consumers...

Exactly, I'm sure their decision to stay with disk-based games and pricing was determined a while ago, but they can't deny that MS was a factor is making those decisions, and the presentation is clearly a direct shot at MS.

And they would've been fools not to take advantage of that opportunity. It wouldn't have shocked me if they had fumbled it, but they handled it quite well.

I'm not ordinarily a console gamer, but Sony is really making me want to buy a PS4.

Actually I am with you on that one. I dont really game as much anymore for the usual 'life gets busy' reasons. Since I normally have a decent(ish) laptop anyways thats becomes my go to for when I do see a title I want to play.

However I am liking the titles Sony will support and am starting to get an itch for better graphic fidelity on my gaming experience while at home.

Sony has done a bangup job on maintaing a clear message and good PR. The fact their model more closely resembles what users do today is a huge plus.

However one advantage the xbox appears to have is its 'share library with "family" members'

If you don't mind having your friends on sub-accounts this could be a very economical way to buy games going forward assuming everyone plays different games at different times. Its actually an interesting solution to sharing in a digital delivery world.

However I see two issues

1) Publishers are going to hate it. They already hate that they dont make money directly from used game sales. They really wont like the ease of sharing digital games. 2) Its possible Sony could adopt a similar setup if the idea proves popular and people dont mind the sharing of an account status. (PS+ Platinum?)

I wonder if xbox sharing would restrict other things though like if you are all on the same account, only one person can use Netflix at a time.

Edit: so someone cleared up a similar structure Sony had implemented in the past.

Thing is, I'l admit that MS isn't wrong in their belief that games are moving to an entirely digital era. I don't particularly care for that trend (I love having a tangible object to call my own), but I can see how it's going. Where I think MS's gamble has gone wrong, and where I think Sony is on the money with, is that we're not quite there yet.

I've been trading games with friends since the NES, and people like me aren't ready to give that up just yet. Multiply that with MS's draconian online requirements, various licensing loopholes, relatively flippant attitude on people's concerns, and total lack of real incentive to adopt all this, just completely alienates the XB1 for me.

I loved the picture with the "supports used games" slide, with the comment: Nintendo: we could have touted it as a feature?

Neither Sony nor Nintendo were talking about their used games policy during the first reveals because it likely never registered as a possible issue. You start designing a system and just assume it is obvious that things will work the way they have been working for more than twenty years now. Sony had an added incentive to get away from the subject during the first event, because they were removing free online play.

Once MS made their idiotic ideas public, they just pounced on the opportunity to score an easy win. Sony suddenly became this saviour of gamers world wide, by not being a douche, rather than delivering amazing news.

When I was watching the conference live I could see how some of the stuff MS is planning might be forward thinking and theoretically good, but I never believed it a likely scenario. Consoles are closed platforms and the Xbox One is the most controlled mainstream platform in history. If Microsoft could use the huge spending advantage over Sony, to lock in many great exclusive titles, win clearly and force Sony out of the gaming business, we would end up with a closely controlled online system, but with few of the advantages Steam provides. And I was really worried that Sony will also somehow try to fatten their bottom line and go with similar restrictions to suck up to publishers.

I was dreading the Verizon/AT&T scenario playing out in the gaming space. Where you have two companies dominating the market and they don't really compete between each other. Whenever Verizon does something to screw their customers, AT&T introduces an identical harmful policy within two weeks, instead of trying to lure customers away by giving them a better deal. As if the two companies were not interested in fighting for each others customers, but rather squeezing the existing ones as much as possible. And I really thought we would get that.

I'm pretty blase about corporations trying to position themselves as our friends and I'm not deluding myself into thinking that Sony is our BFF. It has made the right choice for consumers only because they think it will help them make more money. But that also means they deserve my money. Even if the Xbox One has a better lineup of titles, I am going to buy the PS4 because that is the only way I can send a message to both companies on how they should treat gamers. Sony is in it to make money, not to be your friend. But man... when I was watching that conference (started at 3 AM, local time) I let out a huge sigh of relief and then just started cheering with the people on the stream. And I thought I am way too cynical for that shit.

Considering that members are watching more hours of video than playing games on Xbox Live, and no, it doesn't cost to "enter the store", yeah someone is watching and buying this stuff

Gamers, and more importantly the gaming press for the most part simply lacks the breadth of experience to understand what MS is targeting here. They want it all, they want the X1 to run your entire house from your thermostat to your cable, to your appointment calendar. They know gamers know it plays games, but they are marketing it to people who will NEVER, or very rarely play games on it. People pay tens of thousands of dollars for a Control 4 system or whatever, things that now can be implemented in software (with recurring subscription fees) And they're not selling the box to these people, it will simply be included when you buy Comcast Quadruple-play for 3 years or whatever.

Remember the Wii, it was a piece of junk with a novel gimmick that wore off, but there's still 70 million Wiis that Nintendo made a profit on every sale on out there, even though 60 million of them are gathering dust. Whether Microsoft makes $10 a game, or $15 a month for automation, they don't care, as long as you're paying them.

The only mistake Sony has absolutely learned from is "Don't overprice your console at launch", and "don't attempt to launch multiple expensive new technologies, build with proven gear" but MS doesn't intend that many people to actually be paying $499 for it. From the Xbox Live GOld subsidy program to cable to internet,

So poo-poo TV all you want, when they show up on the today show to run another Kinect with TV demonstration and Comcast will give you one for $199 with 2-years of cable, yeah.

Sony like most any business may see the internet as a giant store. It's the shopping experience that matters. If you go the Microsoft route, it's a price club where you need membership and pay to even enter the store - or to use Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus which you've already paid just to have access.

The Sony model is less restrictive, get in for free, use Netflix (which you already paid for anyway) and if you want access to more, then pay for more and get into the exclusive club that comes with freebies.

This leads to the question for Microsoft, will Microsoft end up back tracking and come up with an XBox One.1 like Windows 8.1 to fix policy decisions that led to a product actual consumers didn't overwhelmingly like? Will Yusif Medhi be shown the door like Sinofsky for betting the companies reputation on something consumers really didn't like?

Sony seems to have learned from their past mistakes. Their motives might not align over time, but at least for now, they are the good guy meme to Microsoft's bad guy meme. Sony lets you in the door, Microsoft charges you at the door to get in, then holds the right to when, where, how long you can be there and if you will ever be able to be entertained when they close the club?

This is Microsoft's Game of Thrones moment. They can be HBO and focus on business to business relationships or do what actual consumers want and focus on actual consumers...

Thing is, I'l admit that MS isn't wrong in their belief that games are moving to an entirely digital era. I don't particularly care for that trend (I love having a tangible object to call my own), but I can see how it's going. Where I think MS's gamble has gone wrong, and where I think Sony is on the money with, is that we're not quite there yet.

This is an excellent point. I think even MS would probably agree with you.

The interesting thing is when we will get there. MS is betting that it will be soon enough that they will make up for any first or second year shortfalls with long term benefit. Sony is betting that the next generation of consoles will be used in similar enough ways to the current gen that they'll do better with incremental change.

I would be shocked if MS outsold Sony in the first 12 months of release. I'm much less sure about year 4, or year 6.

Tell me, why would Sony, if this was "never an issue", file a patent for a used game/online registration DRM technology in January if it never occured to them?

They are lying to you about this. They just outsourced it to the publishers and collected the PR win.

The question journalists need to be asking them is this:

"Does the ability to read RFID tags in game discs exist in the PlayStation 4 hardware? (the answer is undoubtedly yes, for anti-piracy purposes if nothing else), and can it be used by the publishers, should they so choose, to tie a disc to a single user?"

But no one is asking that question, and Sony wouldn't answer it if they did.

I loved the picture with the "supports used games" slide, with the comment: Nintendo: we could have touted it as a feature?

Neither Sony nor Nintendo were talking about their used games policy during the first reveals because it likely never registered as a possible issue. You start designing a system and just assume it is obvious that thing will work the way they have been working for more than twenty years now. Sony had an added incentive to get away from the subject during the first event, because they were removing free online play.

Once MS made their idiotic ideas public, they just pounced on the opportunity to score an easy win. Sony suddenly became this saviour of gamers world wide, by not being a douche, rather than delivering amazing news.

When I was watching the conference live I let out a huge sigh of relief. I could see how some of the stuff MS is planning might be forward thinking and theoretically good, but I never believed it a likely scenario. Consoles are closed platforms and the Xbox One is the most controlled mainstream platform in history. If Microsoft could use the huge spending advantage over Sony, to lock in many great exclusive titles, win clearly and force Sony out of the gaming business, we would end up with a closely controlled online system, but with few of the advantage Steam provides. And I was really worried that Sony will also somehow try to fatten their bottom line and go with similar restrictions to suck up to publishers.

I was dreading the Verizon/AT&T scenario playing out in the gaming space. Where you have two companies dominating the markets and they don't really compete between each other. Whenever Verizon does something to screw their customers, AT&T introduces and identical harmful policy within two weeks, instead of trying to lure customers way by giving them a better deal. As if the two companies were not interested in fighting for each others customers, but rather squeezing the existing ones as much as possible. And I really thought we would we would get that.

I'm pretty blase about corporations trying to position themselves as our friends and I'm not deluding myself into thinking that Sony has made the right choice for consumers only because they think it will help them make more money. But man... when I was watching that conference (started at 3 AM, local time) I let out a huge sigh of relief and then just started cheering with the people on the stream. And I thought I am way too cynical for that shit.

Sony already did a little more than just that: in the past, you could share a single PS3 account with 5 systems and all of them could download and play any game associated with the account. Simultaneously. Hell, I still have two shared accounts on my PS3 with a lot of games on each, and used to play online with all the other members a lot. But, not so long ago, Sony reduced the number of account users from 5 to 2, effectively killing the system.

Xbox One "family members" is roughly the same, but without simultaneous play and with 10 users.

Sony has done a bangup job on maintaing a clear message and good PR. The fact their model more closely resembles what users do today is a huge plus.

However one advantage the xbox appears to have is its 'share library with "family" members'

If you don't mind having your friends on sub-accounts this could be a very economical way to buy games going forward assuming everyone plays different games at different times. Its actually an interesting solution to sharing in a digital delivery world.

However I see two issues

1) Publishers are going to hate it. They already hate that they dont make money directly from used game sales. They really wont like the ease of sharing digital games. 2) Its possible Sony could adopt a similar setup if the idea proves popular and people dont mind the sharing of an account status. (PS+ Platinum?)

I wonder if xbox sharing would restrict other things though like if you are all on the same account, only one person can use Netflix at a time.